U.S. Pat. No. 5,051,996 issued to Bergeson et al. on Sep. 24, 1991 teaches the overall test methodology of testing semiconductor integrated circuit devices, all of whose disclosures are incorporated herein by reference. If component level isolation of fault is desired, the serial signature technique is appropriate. However, if all that are required is fault detection, the parallel technique is the appropriate choice.
In signature analysis, either the parallel or serial signature analyzer is utilized. For signature compression, a multiple input signature register (MISR) is incorporated in the parallel signature analyzer (PSA) while a single input signature register (SISR) is incorporated in the serial signature analyzer (SSA). Considering signature analyzer area, the parallel compression technique utilizing the MISR is more profitable than the serial compression technique utilizing the SISR; the former requires only one MISR but the latter requires a plurality of SISRs. Therefore, recently, the parallel signature compression method is widely used for effectively analyzing signatures.
FIG. 1 is a view schematically illustrating a parallel signature compression technique, which is usually employed to analyze high speed semiconductor integrated circuits. As shown in FIG. 1, a semiconductor integrated circuit 10, such as a microprocessor, a RAM (random access memory), a ROM (read only memory), or a PLA (programmable logic array), is tested. A test input pattern is given to the circuit under test 10 which provides test outputs (i.e., response data) to a compression circuit 12 (i.e., MISR). The test outputs are compressed in the compression circuit 12 in parallel. At the end of the test, a signature (resultant data) of the test is stored in the compression circuit 12. A signature of the test which is generated by compressing the test outputs is read out of the compression circuit 12, and then the externally read contents are compared with expected values. Based on the comparison, the integrated circuit 10 is analyzed.
As described in "Testing Semiconductor Memories", by John Wiley & Sons, 1991, pp.204-209, the signature generated by compressing a test output pattern with errors can be identical with the signature generated by compressing a test output pattern with no error. Namely, there can take place a masking of the signature obtained by compressing the erroneous pattern. The term "masking" defines that an erroneous test output pattern maps into the same signature as the good test outputs.
If the length of the pattern sequences outputted from the circuit under test is longer than the bit length n of the signature register and if respective patterns have the same error generation probability, it is generally known in the art that the probability of masking is 1/2". However, since the above assumption is impracticable, it is required to pay more attention to applying the probability, depending on applications.
The MISR can be implemented in a software or hardware form. In particular, the hardware MISR is a major component of the built-in self test circuit for VLSI logics and memories.
FIG. 2 illustrates a typical MISR for compressing the response data of a circuit under test in parallel. As seen in the figure, MISR 20 includes 6 flip-flop circuits (hereinafter referred to as F-F circuits) 21-1, 21-2, . . . , and 21-6 corresponding to a 6-bit test output pattern P1-P6, respectively. Each F-F circuit 21-i is coupled to the next F-F circuit 21-(i+1) on the upper bit side via an exclusive OR (XOR) gate 23-i, where i=1, 2, . . . , or 6. One XOR gate 23-i and one F-F circuit 21-i constitute a cell. The MISR 20 further includes a feedback tap 25. This tap 25 is coupled to an input of XOR gate 27 whose the other input is coupled to the output of the F-F circuit 21-5. The output of the XOR gate 27 is applied to an input of XOR gate 23-1 in the lowest bit position.
Another structure of MISR is illustrated in FIG. 3. MISR 30 has the same circuit construction as the MISR 20 of FIG. 2, except for having a different feedback tap.
In MISR, if there are errors repetitively on the pattern sequence from a circuit under test, i.e., if MISR is used in compressing the repetitive error patterns, masking can take place. The term "repetitive error patterns" means that in two arbitrary patterns on the pattern sequence, errors are generated at the same interval as the distance between the two patterns. The repetitive error patterns have an odd-numbered distance or even-numbered distance according to the distance between the two patterns.
Repetitive error patterns with distance of 3 and repetitive error patterns with distance 4 are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
TABLE 1 Bit Position P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Pattern 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sequence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
TABLE 1 Bit Position P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Pattern 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sequence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
In the Tables 1 and 2, each row represents a test output pattern. In each pattern, a good data bit is represented by "0" and an erroneous data bit by "1".
In Table 1, after an error appears in the first bit position P1 of the first error pattern of "100000", a repetitive error happens in the fourth bit position of the second error patter of "000100". Namely, the interval between the erroneous bit P1 of the first error pattern 100000 and the erroneous bit P4 of the second error pattern 000100 is equal to the instance between the first and second patterns (i.e., 3). Like this, in Table 2, the interval between the erroneous bit P1 of the first error pattern 100000 and the erroneous bit P5 of the second error pattern 000010 is equal to the instance between the first and second patterns (i.e., 4).
Table 3 shows the resultant data (i.e., signature) obtained by compressing the repetitive error patterns of Table 1 by means of the MISR 20 of FIG. 2.
TABLE 3 Signature S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
As shown in Table 3, during the compression of first through third patterns, the erroneous bit P1 of the first error pattern 100000 in Table 1 is shifted twice. However, during the compression of the second error pattern 000100, it can be seen that the error effect is not propagated to the fourth F-F circuit 21-4 of FIG. 2. Namely, when the second error pattern 000100 is inputted to the MISR 20, its fourth signature bit S4 is "0". This means that the masking occurs. As a result, neither of error effects of the two error patterns is transferred to the signature Sout.
Table 4 shows the signature obtained by compressing the repetitive error patterns of Table 2 by means of the MISR 20 of FIG. 2.
TABLE 4 Signature S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
As seen in Table 4, during the compression of first through fourth patterns, the erroneous bit P1 of the first error pattern 100000 in Table 1 is shifted three times. Also, during the compression of the second error pattern 000010, the error effect is not propagated to the fourth F-F circuit 21-5 of FIG. 2, so that the fifth signature bit S5 is "0". Due to this masking, neither of error effects of the two error patterns is also transferred to the signature Sout.
The above described repetitive error patterns may be easily found during memory fault detection. Therefore, it is required to consider the repetitive error patterns as an important input class of the MISRs used in testing integrated circuit memories.